{"id":9087,"date":"2023-06-15T07:28:22","date_gmt":"2023-06-15T14:28:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=9087"},"modified":"2023-06-15T07:31:40","modified_gmt":"2023-06-15T14:31:40","slug":"no-defendant-does-not-get-off-scot-free-for-a-technical-error","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=9087","title":{"rendered":"No, Defendant Does Not Get Off Scot-Free for a Technical Error"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=8708\">This post<\/a> on March 16 discussed the Supreme Court case of <em>Smith v. United States<\/em>, No. 21-1576. Smith had been tried in the wrong district, and his conviction was reversed on appeal. He claimed that the venue was an element of the offense, such that the Double Jeopardy Clause precluded his retrial in the correct district.<\/p>\n<p>I wrote then, &#8220;When this case first came up, I thought the claim to be so obviously wrong that there was no chance the Court would buy it. I still think so.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Sure enough, the high court today decided that Smith can be retried. Unanimously.<!--more--><\/p>\n<p>The opinion is available <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/22pdf\/21-1576_e29g.pdf\">here<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>More opinions are expected tomorrow.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>This post on March 16 discussed the Supreme Court case of Smith v. United States, No. 21-1576. Smith had been tried in the wrong district, and his conviction was reversed on appeal. He claimed that the venue was an element of the offense, such that the Double Jeopardy Clause precluded his retrial in the correct district. I wrote then, &#8220;When this case first came up, I thought the claim to be so obviously wrong that there was no chance the Court would buy it. I still think so.&#8221; Sure enough, the high court today decided that Smith can be retried. Unanimously.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[13,56],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9087","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-criminal-procedure","category-u-s-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v25.8 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>No, Defendant Does Not Get Off Scot-Free for a Technical Error - Crime &amp; Consequences<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=9087\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"No, Defendant Does Not Get Off Scot-Free for a Technical Error - Crime &amp; Consequences\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"This post on March 16 discussed the Supreme Court case of Smith v. United States, No. 21-1576. Smith had been tried in the wrong district, and his conviction was reversed on appeal. He claimed that the venue was an element of the offense, such that the Double Jeopardy Clause precluded his retrial in the correct district. I wrote then, &#8220;When this case first came up, I thought the claim to be so obviously wrong that there was no chance the Court would buy it. I still think so.&#8221; Sure enough, the high court today decided that Smith can be retried. Unanimously.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=9087\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Crime &amp; Consequences\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CriminalJusticeLegalFoundation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-06-15T14:28:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-06-15T14:31:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/FB_DefaultLJ.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"300\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"400\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Kent Scheidegger\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Kent Scheidegger\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=9087\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=9087\",\"name\":\"No, Defendant Does Not Get Off Scot-Free for a Technical Error - Crime &amp; Consequences\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2023-06-15T14:28:22+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-06-15T14:31:40+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=9087#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=9087\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=9087#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"No, Defendant Does Not Get Off Scot-Free for a Technical Error\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/\",\"name\":\"Crime &amp; Consequences\",\"description\":\"Crime and criminal law\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356\",\"name\":\"Kent Scheidegger\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.cjlf.org\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"No, Defendant Does Not Get Off Scot-Free for a Technical Error - Crime &amp; Consequences","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=9087","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"No, Defendant Does Not Get Off Scot-Free for a Technical Error - Crime &amp; Consequences","og_description":"This post on March 16 discussed the Supreme Court case of Smith v. United States, No. 21-1576. Smith had been tried in the wrong district, and his conviction was reversed on appeal. He claimed that the venue was an element of the offense, such that the Double Jeopardy Clause precluded his retrial in the correct district. I wrote then, &#8220;When this case first came up, I thought the claim to be so obviously wrong that there was no chance the Court would buy it. I still think so.&#8221; Sure enough, the high court today decided that Smith can be retried. Unanimously.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=9087","og_site_name":"Crime &amp; Consequences","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CriminalJusticeLegalFoundation\/","article_published_time":"2023-06-15T14:28:22+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-06-15T14:31:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":300,"height":400,"url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/FB_DefaultLJ.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Kent Scheidegger","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Kent Scheidegger","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=9087","url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=9087","name":"No, Defendant Does Not Get Off Scot-Free for a Technical Error - Crime &amp; Consequences","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2023-06-15T14:28:22+00:00","dateModified":"2023-06-15T14:31:40+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=9087#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=9087"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=9087#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"No, Defendant Does Not Get Off Scot-Free for a Technical Error"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/","name":"Crime &amp; Consequences","description":"Crime and criminal law","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356","name":"Kent Scheidegger","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.cjlf.org"],"url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9087","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=9087"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9087\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9090,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9087\/revisions\/9090"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9087"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9087"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9087"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}